M/s Pallavi Associates vs UT of J&K and others

The petitioner, through the medium of the instant petition has sought the issuance of a direction commanding the respondents to pay an amount of ₹71,44,144/- to the petitioner, for supply of key-material to the official respondents at the instance of respondent No. 2.

The details of the supply made by the petitioner to the official respondents pursuant to communication of the respondent No. 2 are as under:-

It is stated by the petitioner that the aforesaid material was supplied in the month of February, 2018, however, the respondents have not paid the cost of the material till date. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the communication dated 10.07.2019 issued by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 4 regarding the amount due to her.

Official respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 15 have filed response, stating therein that they had neither placed any order with the petitioner nor had any dealing with the petitioner's firm in any manner, therefore, there is no privity of contract with the petitioner, as such, the writ petition is misconceived.

Respondent No. 2, in turn, has filed response, stating therein that the petitioner's firm was no doubt registered with the said respondent, but it was made categorically clear to the petitioner that the amount would be released to the petitioner's firm only after realization/recovery of sale proceeds by respondent No. 2 from the buyer and further that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents shall be determined by the Arbitrator. Besides raising objections with regard to entertainability and maintainability of the petition, it is stated that respondent No. 2 has already requested the Director, Rural Development Department, Jammu to clear the pending liability within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice dated 16.08.2018, but for the reasons best knows to the official respondents, payment was not made.

In terms of order dated 20.07.2022, the respondent No. 1 was directed to file affidavit to submit in detail on the following issues:

In response thereto, an affidavit dated 13.09.2022 along with detailed report submitted by the Director, Rural Development Department, Jammu came to be filed by the Commissioner/Secretary to respondent No. 1. The point-wise reply submitted by the Director, Rural Development Department, Jammu is extracted as under:-

In the affidavit, it was also stated that funds in the MGNREGA scheme are received in 60:40 ratio of labour and material and for these financial years, there has been violation of the 60:40 rule of Labour:Material ratio in the works under MGNREGA in J&K. It is further stated that to clear the liabilities of these financial years, Deputy Commissioners were requested to verify these claims/liabilities/payments and furnish the proposal for demand of funds to the concerned Directorate of RD and PR. The Directors Rural Development Department were entrusted with the responsibility to consolidate the claims and also conduct random verification of works of different districts before sending proposal to the Administrative Department for release of funds. It is further stated that the matter relating to release of funds, as consolidated by the Director, Rural Development Department, Jammu was taken up with the Finance Department on 02.05.2022, however, Finance Department, on 06.06.2022, returned the case with the observation regarding violation of 60:40 rule under MGNREGA. The matter was again processed in the Department and the reply to the observation of the Finance Department was sent on 12.09.2022 for condoning the violation of 40% capping of funds as one time exemption and release of funds was sought for clearing these liabilities.

In terms of order dated 23.11.2022, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was recorded that in Para 5 Clause III of the affidavit, the respondents have not reported with regard to the supply of material to Bhoond, Barnoti, Keeriyan Gandyal and Nagrota Gujroo, in terms of different supply orders mentioned therein and, accordingly, respondent No. 1 was directed to file an affidavit.

In compliance thereof, the respondent No. 1 filed an affidavit dated 11.04.2023 stating therein that the matter was taken up with Director, Rural Development Department Jammu for providing the detailed information with regard to supply of material to Bhoond, Barnoti, Keeriyan Gandyal and Nagrota Gujroo in terms of supply order No. ACD/K/Key Material/2017-18/10645-10660 dated 12.01.2018 and supply order No. ACD/K/Key Material/2017-18/13819-41 dated 27.02.2018 and the Director, Rural Development Department, Jammu forwarded the report submitted by ADC Kathua dated 23.03.2023, stating therein the name of district and blocks and agency-wise work/liability. The same is extracted as under:

In terms of above affidavit, the liability towards respondent No. 2 for Blocks-Barnoti, Bhoond, Nagrota Gujroo and Keerian Gandyal, conjointly is ₹8.06 (must be in lacs).

In terms of order dated 29.01.2024, it was observed that prima facie there is variation between the outstanding amount claimed by the petitioner and the amount admitted to be outstanding as per the respondents. Thereafter, in terms of order dated 15.04.2024, the respondent No. 1 was directed to file an affidavit with regard to extent of admitted liability towards the petitioner.

Pursuant to order dated 15.04.2024, an affidavit came to be filed by the respondent No. 1, stating therein that neither any supply order has ever been issued nor any approval has been given by the answering respondent to the petitioner regarding the works/supplies mentioned by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has no claim against the respondent No. 1 and no liability has arisen between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. It was further stated that the answering respondent was liable only to pay to those agencies to which the department has placed the supply order as per agreed terms and conditions.

In response to the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 in pursuance to order dated 15.04.2024, a supplementary affidavit came to be filed by the petitioner, stating therein that in the supplementary affidavit dated 11.04.2023 filed by the respondent No. 1, it is stated that the respondent No. 1 has admitted the liability of supply material in Blocks-Barnoti, Bhoond, Nagrota Gujroo and Keerian Gandyal for an amount of ₹ 9,76,159/- and in Para 5 of the supplementary affidavit dated 09.05.2024, it is stated that the respondents have admitted the liability to the extent of ₹ 34.79 lacs in the affidavits dated 13.09.2022 and dated 11.04.2023. It is also stated that the respondents have admitted the liability of ₹ 9, 76, 159/- in CCP No. 173/2020 and ₹ 20,38,838/ in CCP No. 172/2020.

The respondent No. 2 has also filed affidavit dated 28.04.2026, stating therein that total amount due to the petitioners in WP(C) No. 10/2020 and WP(C) No. 77/2020.

The matrix of the dispute is with regard to payment of amount due to the petitioner in lieu of the supplies made by the petitioner at the behest of respondent No. 2, who was tasked by the official respondents to make the supplies. In the affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 in response to order dated 15.04.2024, it is stated that the answering respondent is liable only to pay to those agencies to which the department has placed the supply order as per agreed terms and conditions and the petitioner is a stranger to the respondent, as no supply order was ever placed to the petitioner, but at the same time, in the affidavit dated 13.09.2022, report of the respondent No. 4 has been appended, wherein it is stated that ₹ 34.79 Lakhs is the pending liability of the said agency. Further, in the subsequent affidavit dated 11.04.2023 filed in pursuance to order dated 23.11.2022, respondent No. 1 has stated that the total liability towards the various agencies including respondent No.2 is₹9,76,159. In the same affidavit it is further stated that liability towards the respondent No. 2 is ₹7.66 and ₹ 0.4 (must be lacs) towards respondent No. 2. The amount of ₹ 9,76,159/ as stated by the petitioner to have been admitted by the respondents is the total amount due to all the suppliers i.e. SICOP, NCCF, JK Cement, JAKFED and local vendor and not to the petitioner alone. Thus, the petitioner has admitted the liability of ₹34.79 lacs only and the rest of the liability towards the respondent No. 2 is yet to be quantified by the official respondents.

In view of the above, the claim of the petitioner for an amount of ₹71,44,144/- cannot be allowed in its entirety, rather, the official respondents have admitted liability of ₹34.79 lacs only towards the respondent No. 2, at whose behest, the petitioner had supplied the material.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the official respondents to place an amount of ₹34.79 lacs at the disposal of respondent No. 2, so that the same is released in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed to between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Rest of the liability admitted in affidavit dated 11.04.2023 be quantified specifically and placed at the disposal of respondent No. 2 for its further release in favour of petitioner in accordance with terms and condition of agreement. Insofar as the remaining claim, not admitted by the official respondents, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate legal remedies as may be available under law. The official respondents shall ensure the compliance of this order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, they shall pay an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this writ petition.

Disposed of along with the connected application, if any.

In view of disposal of the main petition, contempt proceedings are closed and the contempt petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

The petitioner, through the medium of this petition has sought the issuance of direction commanding the respondents to pay an amount of ₹ 20,44,716/- to the petitioner, for supply of key-material to the official respondents at the instance of respondent No. 2, in view of the communication dated 10.07.2019 of respondent No. 2.

The petitioner has sought release of ₹ 20,44,716/- on the ground that she had supplied the key material i.e. cement to the official respondents at the behest of respondent No. 2.

The details of the supply made by the petitioner are as under:

In this case also, response has been filed by the respondents on the identical lines as mentioned above, however, pursuant to order dated 20.07.2022, passed in this writ petition along with CCP(S) No. 172/2020, the respondent No. 1 was directed to file an affidavit on the following points:-

In response thereto, the affidavit dated 13.09.2022 came to be filed by respondent No. 1, wherein in Para (iv) of the affidavit, it is admitted that as per report of the Block Development Officer, Banihal, Gool and Sangaldan, the balance payment on account of supply of cement to the tune of ₹ 20, 38, 838/- is still outstanding in the name of the respondent No. 2 and the amount could not be released due to non-availability of funds.

In view of the categoric admission made by the respondent No. 1 with regard to liability to the tune of ₹ 20, 38, 838/-, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing the official respondents to place an amount of ₹ 20,38,838/- at the disposal of respondent No. 2, so that the same is released in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed to between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. Insofar as the remaining claim to the tune of ₹5,878/- (Rupees Five Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy-Eight only) is concerned, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to such appropriate legal remedies as may be available under law. The official respondents shall ensure the compliance of this order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, they shall pay an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this writ petition.

Disposed of along with the connected application, if any.

In view of disposal of the main petition, contempt proceedings are closed and the contempt petition is, accordingly, disposed of.